Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-1875 ( November 11, 2016)

It is reasonable to see that the money of the borrowed account was actually attributed to the actual representative, and it is not against the speed since the re-audit according to the re-audit decision has been performed.

In light of the circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff constitutes the actual representative of the corporation and the amount of money in the name account was actually attributed to the actual representative, as the Plaintiff maintained the original disposition through a re-examination lawfully in accordance with the decision of the Tax Tribunal.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2016Nu78075 global income and revocation of such disposition

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

November 11, 2016

April 26, 2017

May 31, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On September 15, 2014, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 105,396,820 for global income tax for the Plaintiff on September 15, 2014, KRW 269,683,850 for the year 2005, KRW 342,537,90 for the year 2006, KRW 370,506,940 for the year 2007, KRW 381,572,210 for the year 2008, and KRW 22,897,930 for the year 209, KRW 1,492,595,650 for the year 2006.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, except for dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Parts to be removed or added;

��제3쪽 제10행의 "항소하여 현재 항소심 계속 중이다"를 "항소하였는데, 항소심 법원은 2017. 4. 20. '항소 후 CCC와 원고가 납부한 금액 중 DDD의 지분에 해당하는 부분은 DDD의 제2차 납세의무가 자동으로 소멸하는 것이므로 이 부분에 대한 취소를 구할 소의 이익이 없다고 보아 그 취소부분에 해당하는 소를 각하하고 원고의 나머지 항소를 기각하는' 판결을 선고하였으며, 위 판결은 2017. 5. 13. 확정되었다"로 고친다.

��제11쪽 제11행의 "이유 없다" 뒤에 다음의 내용을 추가한다.

The Plaintiff asserts that Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11183, Dec. 31, 2011) is not applicable to each global income tax, since the exclusion period for imposition of each global income tax for the years 2004 and 2005 is five years from the date on

Then, "Fraud and other unlawful acts" under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes are committed or attempted to commit unlawful acts while recognizing the fact that a person liable for tax payment commits fraud and other unlawful acts and recognizing that such acts result in tax evasion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do817, Jun. 29, 2006; 2008Do9436, May 29, 2009). If a representative of a corporation commits an act of manipulating the books of a corporation in the course of embezzlement of corporation funds, he can only be seen as an act of concealing the amount of such embezzlement, and it can be seen as an act to evade corporate tax by concealing corporate income in light of the circumstances, and it is 200 years from the date on which he receives a false tax invoice and appropriated the amount in excess of the purchase amount on the books, and it is 20 years from the date on which he declares the amount of income tax to 160-13 years from the date of imposition of taxation.

On the other hand, the principle of non-payment of tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes or the principle of non-taxation of retroactive taxation is that in a case where any enactment or amendment of tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes, or any interpretation or any revision of the guidelines by the tax authorities for the interpretation or management of the Acts and subordinate statutes, the pertinent Acts and subordinate statutes cannot be applied to the taxation-related facts that have been closed before the validity thereof, and it does not restrict the application of new Acts and subordinate statutes to the facts that have been continued before or after the lapse of the guidelines (Supreme Court Decision 2008Du2736

(see, e.g., Decision)

The Plaintiff’s use of the deposit account in the name of EE and F in the Plaintiff’s name account omitted the agency sales deposited into the above name account, and only reported the agency sales and cash sales deposited into the deposit account in the CCC corporation to evade corporate tax by concealing the actual sales content of CCC and evading corporate tax. Furthermore, since the fact that the amount of the instant name account was reverted to the Plaintiff, it is anticipated that the disposition of income by the tax authorities should be made, and it is difficult to view that the period for exclusion of imposition of each global income tax is to evade the comprehensive income tax on the bonus accrued to the Plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the period for exclusion of imposition of ten years pursuant to the former part of Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

However, in light of the overall purport of the statements in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, since the Plaintiff can be recognized as having failed to file a global income tax base return in 2004 and 2005, the exclusion period for imposition of seven years pursuant to Article 26-2 (4) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007) and Article 12-3 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19893 of Feb. 28, 2007), in cases of national taxes, such as global income tax, the following day after the tax base and filing deadline for filing a global income tax base and tax amount can be assessed on national taxes, and Article 70 (1) 2 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) provides that the exclusion period for imposition of two years following the date for imposition of two years shall be imposed on May 16, 2016.

Therefore, applying the latter part of the above provision to each global income tax for the tax years 2004 and 2005 is still pending, and it is legitimate to apply the taxation requirement that has not yet been terminated before the validity of the latter part of the above provision. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.